Balaji, If TCAM is your best example, you are not making a convincing argument. See the prior response.
Curtis In message <CAHF4apPa++YH-B4f-cJdY62Vt-qUF=ja_on2n6t8xzuamto...@mail.gmail.com> Balaji venkat Venkataswami writes: > Dear Eric, > > You had written... > > If yes... > - please provide concrete examples of how this actually works. In my > experience the power draw by a router or switch is pretty constant, more > driven by the *existence* of links (because links -> linecards -> power > draw) than by the *traffic* on those links. > > If not, what do you hope to accomplish by avoiding higher-power nodes? > > <balajivenkat> Our answer to the above question is this. We are rephrasing > the question as "Can you send more traffic through low power consuming > nodes ?". Therefore If yes does not come into the picture. > > The end objective slowly the traffic will migrate to the low power nodes > and the high power consuming nodes can be dismantled. > > The other mail for TCAM that I had sent will deal with answer to your > problem. > > > thanks and regards, > balaji venkat > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Balaji venkat Venkataswami < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Eric, > > > > Please take a look at the tcam-efficiency draft that we have published. > > > > The URL to the draft is > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-panet-tcam-power-efficiency-00 > > > > A follow up draft that defines TCAM efficiency in terms of a metric is > > also outlined in... > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mjsraman-panet-tcam-power-ratio-02 > > > > With the help of the above schemes and additional work that is in progress > > we intend to reduce the > > power footprint of a device/router/switch/chassis such that important > > power guzzling components of > > the router are optimized. > > > > In summary, the above 2 drafts coupled with the protocol schemes will we > > feel result in better power > > saving than what we have today. So essentially optimizing the power > > consumed within a device > > coupled with using protocol schemes between devices will result in saving > > power. > > > > Hope this helps. > > > > thanks and regards, > > balaji venkat > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Eric Osborne (eosborne) < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > >> [size trimmed] > >> > >> OK, so you want to avoid nodes which draw more power. > >> Are you assuming that minimizing the traffic across a node also minimizes > >> the power that node draws? > >> > >> If yes: > >> - please provide concrete examples of how this actually works. In my > >> experience the power draw by a router or switch is pretty constant, more > >> driven by the *existence* of links (because links -> linecards -> power > >> draw) than by the *traffic* on those links. > >> > >> If not, what do you hope to accomplish by avoiding higher-power nodes? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> eric > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Balaji venkat Venkataswami [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 10:59 AM > >> > To: Eric Osborne (eosborne) > >> > Cc: Shankar Raman; [email protected]; [email protected] > >> > Subject: Re: Power aware networks : Comments requested from routing > >> > community > >> > > >> > Dear Eric, > >> > > >> > We seem to be discussing at cross purposes. > >> > > >> > The root of our position is not what you have stated. We do not say if > >> you dont > >> > use a link you consume less power. We are not for avoiding links but we > >> are for > >> > avoiding nodes/routers/switches which have a large power footprint. The > >> > essence of using link metrics is to avoid nodes with larger power > >> footprints. > >> > That is how SPF or CSPF works. When it computes a low power path it > >> avoids > >> > nodes and also links that lead to that node which has a larger power > >> footprint. > >> > So the premise that we are just avoiding links is WRONG. > >> > > >> > For #1 question, we dont even talk about the power the link draws. We > >> talk > >> > about the power footprint of the node that it is connected to. > >> > > >> > For #2 question, again we state that your premise of avoiding links in > >> your > >> > example is a non-starter for us. > >> > > >> > thanks and regards, > >> > balaji venkat _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
